THE LICENSING LAWS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 18 June 1932, Page 2

THE LICENSING LAWS

ALLEGED BREACHES At tiio Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr T. E. Maunsell S.M. Harold Thomas Fenemor, barman at the Royal Hotel was fined £2, costs 10s for, being a person other than the licensee, selling liquor after closing hours. W. J. Thompson, licensee of the. Royal Hotel, who was charged with selling, exposing for sale and opening his premises for the sale of liquor was fined £l, costs 10s as a result of his barman selling liquor. Defendant stated that he did not give the barman authority to sell the liguor after closing time, and did not know men were in the bar. His Worship remarked that lie would impose a nominal fine only as there was no moral blame on the licensee’s part. Eight persons found oil the premises at the lime of the police visit were fined 15s, costs 10s for. four in work; 10s, costs 10s for three out of work; and a conviction and costs 10s only for one who could not work on account of in-

juries. William Sherlock, licensee of yne Wakatu Hotel was charged with selling, exposing for sale, and opening for the sale of liquor.; The defence was that the five men on the premises when the police made the visit were members of a deputation ot a football club to wait on a new player from South Canterbury regarding Ins joining the local club. They had had no drink and were enquiring of the iicenseo where the player concerned was at the time. The police evidence was to the effect that there were glasses (two containing liquor) on a table in the bar parlour, but the men were standing at the bar slide away from the table. His Worship reserved his decision for a week in both the charges against the licensee and also in those against the men found on the premises. Charges of exposing, and_ opening for sale were heard against Keith Hickson, licensee of the Trafalgar Hotel, but the evidence of the defence was not completed when His Worship decided to dismiss .the charges. The l same decision applied to two men charged with being found on the 1 premises. The reason of their presence, accepted by the Magistrate, was that they were assisting the proprietor to take stock. Entries by defendants in the stock book bore testi. mony to this fact.